Why are PC Gamers paying $60 now?

It all started when Activision had the audacity to start charging $60 for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. Activision realized that after the success of Modern Warfare, they can pretty much charge any amount they please for the sequel and PC gamers would still flock to buy it. Of Course, if you’re into the multiplayer aspect of Modern Warfare 2, then the game comes packed with hundreds of hours of game play, so it’s safe to assume that Activision, somehow, got away with it, but when Assassin’s Creed 2, a single player game with absolutely no multiplayer and a horrible DRM that serves to punish legit buyers, is selling for $60 and the upcoming standard editions of Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are also selling for $60 too, things have gotten too far ,and we can see that a new trend is emerging.

Of course, you may come and point out the fact that console games cost $60 too. Why should PC gamers have to pay $50 when console gamers have to pay $60? Well, On top of the $50 that publishers set for their games to be sold on the console, they will also need to pay about, or more than, $10 per copy licensing fee to Microsoft and Sony respectively in order for them to sell the games on their console in the first place, which you guessed it, you pay for, but, unlike console gaming, there are no licensing fees for PC games. In fact, Microsoft, themselves, offers publishers to put the “Games for Windows Live” in their games free of charge. After this, we can only deduce that publishers who price their games $60 on the PC earn more money per game sold on the PC than do they earn per game sold on the console.

When someone asks on a forum, what is the reason behind all this pirating? A number of answers can be heard, such as “because I can” or “because games are too expensive”. The fact that games are becoming more expensive should in some ways exacerbate the whole pirating issue publishers are ranting about, and when publishers like Ubisoft deter customers by raising the price tag and by forcing a completely unnecessary DRM to play a single player game and then complaining about low sales is just really pathetic. As for Blizzard, I have no doubt that, no matter, the price tag that are put on their games, their games will sell like hot cake. Of course, is the raising in price tag necessary? Is Activision getting a little too greedy? I will have no doubt that some of you do think that Blizzard games are worth every penny of that $60, and that you can recoup the money lost by restricting yourself from $10 worth of beer, but remember, by thinking like this, you are advocating the new trend.

4 Reasons to reconsider upgrading your PC

With the release of Nvidia’s latest flagship cards, I, and many other PC gamers, have been bombarded with the same old enticing phrases, such as “The World’s fastest graphics card”, that have come to play with our desires, but with advent of unoptimized games lately and the fact that the last major release of a graphic milestone was in 2007, are these top-of-the-line hardware really necessary? Nope. Why?

An 8800gtx can still max out games today.


” Your best purchase ever!”
It is surprising and baffling at the same time that a three year old piece of hardware has lasted for so long and yet remained so strong. Indeed, you’d be hard-pressed to count the games that this beast of a bygone generation cannot max out, unless you are counting unoptimized trash, but really who bothers counting unoptimized trash anyway?                                                                 “unoptimized trash”

Things may not be what they seem.

Remember three years ago when your gaming buddies told you not to bother with a Q6600 because pretty much no game benefits from having a quad core, but you bought one anyway because you figured out that four is better than two then, a week later, your buddies dropped by your house to find you weeping alone in the dark because the e8400,which was in the same price range, just came out and outperformed your quad in about 95% of the games? Yeah, you do.

There is no such thing as “Future-Proofing.”

Ask any PC enthusiast, who has been upgrading his PC since Quake, if he considers upgrading his PC with the intent of “Future-Proofing”. The short answer will be No. In fact, he will proceed to tell you that you should upgrade with the intent of playing games that have been released or games that will be released in the near future, but not the ones in three years time. Sadly, this is true because we have no idea what may happen in three years time, perhaps a new version of direct x will be released or the hardware you intend on buying may become obsolete, so buying hardware with the intent of “Future-Proofing” may, one day, leave you disappointed.

The price/performance ratio decreases significantly after a GTX 260 with a high end dual core processor, such as an E8400. (MARCH 2010)

I believe that any piece of hardware more expensive than any of those two is superfluous and totally unnecessary, unless you are playing on a resolution higher than 1680×1050 or like playing games with 16x AA.  They are enough for maxing out most games except, well, unoptimized trash, but really who bothers buying unoptimized trash anyway?